I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

Asked if the world would support a US bombing campaign against Iran, [UK Foreign Secretary] Straw said: “Not only is that inconceivable, but I think the prospect of it (US military action) happening is inconceivable.”

And Vizzini thought it was “absolutely, totally, and in all other ways, inconceivable” that he was being followed by the Man in Black…

I would have thought it was inconceivable that a thread on Iran would generate two Princess Bride references, but when some journalist goes around declaring that something is inconceivable, it’s probably likely that the opposite is true.

Here is what I heard:
Straw: “Not only is that inconceivable, but I think the prospect of it (US military action) happening is inconceivable.”

Press Core: “What is that suitcase with the big red button for?”

Straw: “It is inconceivable that is is the detonator for a multi-megaton nuclear bomb planted in the heart of Tehran. See, I push the button and -click- NOTHING. INCONCEIVABLE! What? Ummm, excuse me.”
-Mr Straw leans over to listent to an aid as he mouths “I thought it was a prop!”-

“Straw added that the international community was committed to resolving the situation ‘contructively’.”

I bet he really said “constructively,” and the most constructive outcome is the nuclear facility gone. Anyway, with the references to “international community” and the irony of saying something is inconceivable, when the very fact of discussing it means it is conceivable to someone, it should give the Mullahs a little pause.

he was not asked whether a military strike against Iran would happen, but whether the US would do it.

I’d hope that the US would do it, but one should remember that there are 1.5 countries nearby who just might take it upon themselves, making Straw right, but still eliminating Iranian nukes… free hint, they both start with I but don’t end in d or a…

now, granted the new Iraqi government acquiring a fleet of 10 F-117s and 5 B2s (or some entrepreneurial pilots stealing them) is rather a low probability event, but stranger things have happened: the Red Sox did win the world series after all, and on an 8-0 run after being 2 outs away from elimination…

Bill O’Reilly pinned him down on it in their interview. He had to ask him several different ways before Bush unequivocally said “Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons”. The Mullahs bettter come to a consensus with the EU negotiators, or else it is KA-BOOM!

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous of which is: “Never get involved in a land war in Asia.” But, only slightly less well known is this: “Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!”

By the way great site, I’ve been following for a while. there is a mission here, I as a libertarion who is waning, says let’s get ’em. It’s 7:30, Arafat ain’t dead yet…let’s hope it happens quick…go dawgs!

Since I’m sick, let me just heave some link droppage. I’m reading these posts on my sick bed, so why not refer them? I just can’t keep them down–stuff seems to be coming out every oraface! Crumpets get puked. Southern…

This quote from THE AUSTRIALIAN about Chaney—
“You can imagine him shaking hands with an adversary, looking him straight in the eye, and whispering quietly: “I’m now gonna break both your legs.”
It’s a good thing he’s on our side. ”

Let’s try an experiment in association, all you fans of Jack Straw. A jack is a male donkey and “Straw” is “warts” spelled backward. Imagine, if you will, a braying swayback donkey covered in oozing, pustulant warts. Now, see if you can hear his name in the future without associating that image. Good luck.

Stephen, you willing to bet on this? That the U.S. is going to make an attack on Iran without being directly provoked first (e.g. Iranian armed forces attacking US forces) in the next 4 years?

Are you aware of the fact that the US already has barely enough troops to keep its commitments? That no country in the world, not the UK, not Australia, is going to join you on any kind of preemptive military adventure ever again?

Haven’t learned your lesson on the whole “don’t attack without overwhelming force, including the troops you need to occupy the country” thing?

Hell, even the U.K. isn’t our ally. We simply have congruent interests more often than not…

Posted by Spoons at November 4, 2004 01:08 PM

I’m really beginning to wonder about the U.K. – I don’t know if it’s just their left winged press but they (and a lot of others) are really giving us a lot of crap for re-electing Bush. (Check out U.S. ELECTION DISASTER: THE WORLD MOURNS..)

I’m already a bit of an isolationist. “Screw em all.” We should tell them that next time all these countries come begging for money or troops.

The Mullahocracy is vulnerable to other means of regime change than full frontal assault. This election result alone is going to give a lot of encouragement to the forces of democracy in Iran. Sometime within the next four years, the terror regime will teeter and fall. It will be so exciting to watch it happen.

Ted B. re “Ahh, but you’ve missed the nuance. It’s not going to be a “boming campaign”, it’s just one massive raid…in and out. Or, in the case of massive cruise-missle volley…in your window, mullah.”
I find it very (very) hard to conceive that it would be this easy.
First, countries learned about the bombing approach back when Israel did it in 1981. One has to presume that nuclear proliferation programs are armored/dispersed/concealed/decoyed/etc to reduce the odd of success of this sort of attack.
Second, is the intelligence good enough? Not good in the sense of justifying an attack, but in the harder sense of targeting *all* the important stuff.

Another problem is that it would perilously close to declaring an all-out crusade on Islam, 1 billion strong. The Pakistani government is unpopular, and the Pakistani nuclear weapons are better.

The problem is working out a peaceful alternative; the Iranians don’t seem to be very interested.

Bobby2:“Screw em all.” We should tell them that next time all these countries come begging for money or troops.
Offhand I can’t recall the last time the UK asked for either.
Try telling that, for instance, to the Black Watch in Iraq who lost another three men yesterday. Best of luck.

BTW, I wouldn’t take the Mirror as a guide to public opinion here.
For instance, one poll I noticed showed 29% favouring Bush over Kerry; not great but considering the anti-Bush barrage laid down by the BBC et al. hardly surprising. And of those who’d prefer Kerry, and still more the majority who don’t give a hoot one way or the other, most still regard the alliance as vital, no matter who is President.

Iran is already attacking the US, through its proxies in Iraq. No further provocation from Iran is necessary, to trigger the inevitable retaliation.
US air power can achieve what is needed in Iran. To destroy nuclear facilities and weaken the underpinnings of the bloody mullahs.

Stephen Greene draws on the script from The Princess Bride for his headline regarding a comment from UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that a military campaign against Iran would be “inconceivable”. To which Steve muses, I Do Not Think That Word Means Wh…

The Navy, Marines and AF (I don’t follow the Army) are turning folks away at recruiting stations and requiring that folks who are reenlisting be checked out by the group in charge of that entire branch– usually, only the command must check them out before reelistment.

If I hadn’t made third on my first time up (a bit over a year ago; AT-I, for anyone who cares) I wouldn’t have been allowed to extend for my next set of orders.

The military has been “force shaped” to a fairly low number, yes, but if restrictions on the number of personel were lifted we’d have a very large force in about two years. (Especially if you allowed folks who got out to return without losing rank or time in rate.)